Judge Posner says an injunction against Motorola would be "catastrophic."

Share this story

Apple's quest for an injunction against Motorola for alleged patent infringement could have "catastrophic" results, according to a federal judge. The comments came up during a Wednesday afternoon hearing in Chicago, where Judge Richard Posner listened to arguments from Apple as to why an injunction is necessary to prevent Motorola from infringing on Apple's mobile device patents (and vice versa). No decision was made at the hearing, but Judge Posner's comments show that he would rather force the companies to play nice and pay royalties instead of taking their patent war to the next level.

Earlier this month, Posner canceled the jury trial that was scheduled to take place in the pending infringement lawsuit between Apple and Motorola. The two companies had already pruned their lists down to what they considered to be the most essential patents that the other had violated—Apple's list ended up with four, while Motorola's had one. However, Posner rejected the claim that either company should receive damages. Posner ultimately left the door open as to whether there should be injunctive relief, which was the purpose of Wednesday's hearing.

According to Reuters, Posner described the US patent system as "chaos" (and the man's not wrong). He further said restricting the sale of Motorola phones would have "catastrophic effects" on both the mobile device market and consumers. But Apple's attorney, Matthew Powers, argued the company doesn't want to bar the sale of Motorola's devices. Instead, Motorola could simply remove the technology that Apple claims to have patented from its handsets. Posner didn't quite buy it—he suggested it could be better if Motorola simply pays Apple a compulsory royalty.

Meanwhile, Posner scolded Motorola for attempting to obtain its own injunction against Apple for allegedly infringing on a standards-essential patent—one that that Motorola had agreed to license under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. "I don't see how you can have injunction against the use of a standard essential patent," Posner said.

Share this story

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

114 Reader Comments

It was normal for everyone to have a "spell check button", normal to have a separate window with a list of suggested words, normal to have a "change to" box that got populated when you clicked on a suggestion, and normal to have a "correct" button to implement said change.

The patent, and the implementation in Word 95, would have spell check occurring as you type, misspelling detected highlighted before you entered the next word, and a dropdown of reasonable suggestions if you clicked on it.

This is normal today, not in 1996.

Whether this should be patentable is a separate argument I cannot justify or defend, but the point is that, in 1996, it was very clever.

As a professional developer, I disagree. It boils down to "what if we check the spelling as they type?" - everything else is straightforward, or all comes down to the UI polish you give it. Some of our game systems are unique and new, ideas that nobody else has come up with. But the implementation is vastly more costly and iterative than the basic idea. And the implementation is already protected. The patent quite literally monopolises the idea, and that is wrong - no matter how insightful the idea.

Feel free to disagree. Patents are intended to monopolize the idea.

There are tons of ways to implement dynamic spellcheck.

You could have a second window that constantly displays a list of suggestions instead of a context menu; hitting shift-down could select the appropriate one (this implementation is similar to how some smartphone autocorrect works). In that vein, having an action drawer (call, respond, load link, save, etc) gets around this patent.

You could have the context menu appear automatically instead of selecting it (this is also how some smartphones work). The same is true for Android; instead of having a link to shout out it is actionable, you have a flyover hovering over the screen with actions when the document is loaded (a variant of the above)

The point is that patents are intended to protect even the simplest and stupidest ideas, but on the flip, the simpler the idea, the easier it is to work around, too.

Having an action drawer sounds nice. Load an email with a phone number and link and such, drag a window from the right side of the screen and get a list:Call XAdd person X to contactsAdd X to contact YLoad linkSave link for laterForward emailReply to email

In software UI design, there are usually only 1 or 2 ways which are most efficient in doing a task, and are usually immediately obvious [obvious in the sense that it only takes a competent designer less than an afternoon to figure it out]. eg. swipe to unlock the phone is the immediately obvious and efficient way once you decide on a touchscreen interface. eg Opening a dynamic menu right under the word for spell correction / action choice. Allowing to patent such ideas usually only means rewarding the first to file an idea rather than rewarding innovation, and the monopoly would hamper integration and further development.

For another example, the Microsoft Surface tablet got quite some raving for its form design. But really, the form factor design is very obvious. When ipad was first released, it took me a moment to figure out that such a form would be the natural extension of tablet because, really, it is the only natural way. It would be silly if Microsoft can simply patent this form and call it an innovation (instead of some underlying technologies that really require long research).

If you don't want to copy someone else, design something better, or negotiate a license.

Here's a better "unlock" mechanism: Hold the screen up to your face, on the assumption that as soon as you're looking at the thing you're expected to use it. Have an accelerometer detect motion then have the camera look for a face, etc.

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Have the gyro and accelerometer determine that the phone is fairly stable at an angle between 40 to 80 degrees. If it moves in an arc as if being placed in front of you, turn on the screen.

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Detect motion and turn on the Mic and listen for the person to say, "Unlock".

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Detect motion and determine it is being gripped by a hand (as opposed to moving in your pocket), and turn on the screen if it is determined that the phone is held for more than a second (since the phone is now being used)

What is the legal basis for FRAND anyway? When Motorola was granted these patents, did it have to sign a contract? With whom, the patent office? Or with other players in the industry? Who were those other players? Or is there a federal law that decreed certain patents as FRAND?

I keep reading about FRAND, and I understand the principle, but I haven't seen anyone explain why and how it's legally binding.

Ok, I'll have a go.In the early days of say, the mobile telephony industry, there were many players with competing technology and very small slices of the revenue pie. It became obvious that some standards must be adopted to allow the industry to grow and investments to be repaid. Interested parties were asked to submit their technology to the SSO(Standard Setting Organisation). If adopted as part of the standard, these parties agreed to its use on FRAND licensing terms.This enabled a worldwide industry to be created with commensurately larger profits and stability to get a return on investment. All companies wishing to be part of that industry have to use the same technology and are obligated to pay royalties to the owners of contributed technology. Thus a huge industry was built on shared technology, an industry predicated on low fee terms ie Fair and Reasonable. You might ask why would a company offer their technology on this basis. Well that's the trade off. Without the standard, there would be no chance at all of a return on investment. Better a small slice of a worldwide industry than larger returns from a tiny market.Problems have arisen because some companies - Motorola, Samsung to name two, are asking for royalties way out of line with the usual fees payable under FRAND terms and who also, allegedly, are demanding excessive payments from some participants - Apple and Microsoft to name the two highest profile victims, whilst licensing the same SEPs to other companies at a lower rate ie the opposite of Non Descriminatory.FRAND licensing has to date, not been tested in court to determine the level of payments, which is the reason for all current the legal action.Regarding the OP, I would be surprised, if Judge Posner ordered Apple to license non SEP technology, that the decision would stand on appeal. I seem to recall some patented medical technology being force-ably licensed 'for the greater good' of humanity in general, but it would be a stretch to apply the same principle here

If you don't want to copy someone else, design something better, or negotiate a license.

Here's a better "unlock" mechanism: Hold the screen up to your face, on the assumption that as soon as you're looking at the thing you're expected to use it. Have an accelerometer detect motion then have the camera look for a face, etc.

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Have the gyro and accelerometer determine that the phone is fairly stable at an angle between 40 to 80 degrees. If it moves in an arc as if being placed in front of you, turn on the screen.

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Detect motion and turn on the Mic and listen for the person to say, "Unlock".

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Detect motion and determine it is being gripped by a hand (as opposed to moving in your pocket), and turn on the screen if it is determined that the phone is held for more than a second (since the phone is now being used)

So why can't I have a patent that gives me exclusive right to use "double click to execute program" ?

If you don't want to copy someone else, design something better, or negotiate a license.

Here's a better "unlock" mechanism: Hold the screen up to your face, on the assumption that as soon as you're looking at the thing you're expected to use it. Have an accelerometer detect motion then have the camera look for a face, etc.

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Have the gyro and accelerometer determine that the phone is fairly stable at an angle between 40 to 80 degrees. If it moves in an arc as if being placed in front of you, turn on the screen.

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Detect motion and turn on the Mic and listen for the person to say, "Unlock".

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Detect motion and determine it is being gripped by a hand (as opposed to moving in your pocket), and turn on the screen if it is determined that the phone is held for more than a second (since the phone is now being used)

I think you are underestimating the mind of human. Obvious can just mean obvious, not obvious after the fact. All the alternative unlocking mechanisms you suggested are more cumbersome, more expensive to implement or less accurate. As I said, swipe to unlock is the most efficient, simply and obvious way that any competent designer can land on. I know, because I think of it before iphone ever exists.

If you don't want to copy someone else, design something better, or negotiate a license.

Here's a better "unlock" mechanism: Hold the screen up to your face, on the assumption that as soon as you're looking at the thing you're expected to use it. Have an accelerometer detect motion then have the camera look for a face, etc.

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Have the gyro and accelerometer determine that the phone is fairly stable at an angle between 40 to 80 degrees. If it moves in an arc as if being placed in front of you, turn on the screen.

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Detect motion and turn on the Mic and listen for the person to say, "Unlock".

Here's another "unlock" mechanism: Detect motion and determine it is being gripped by a hand (as opposed to moving in your pocket), and turn on the screen if it is determined that the phone is held for more than a second (since the phone is now being used)

I think you are underestimating the mind of human. Obvious can just mean obvious, not obvious after the fact. All the alternative unlocking mechanism you suggested are more cumbersome, more expensive to implement or less accurate. As I said, swipe to unlock is the most efficient, simply and obvious way that any competent designer can land on.

I disagree! Why shouldn't the phone turn on by itself? Why shouldn't the screen activate and unlock when I hold it in front of my face? Why shouldn't it unlock when I say, "Unlock"? Why shouldn't it turn on when I hold it in my hand, since it's obvious I'm about to use it?

I'm not being childish. You don't have a patent despite being obvious to you. It wasn't obvious to Palm, to RIM, to Nokia, to HTC, or anyone else except possibly Neonode, and because you don't have that patent, Apple has the ability to litigate everyone to death.

I'm not being childish. You don't have a patent despite being obvious to you. It wasn't obvious to Palm, to RIM, to Nokia, to HTC, or anyone else except possibly Neonode, and because you don't have that patent, Apple has the ability to litigate everyone to death.

I don't have the patent because I don't have the resource or the need or the attention to patent these things, and it is generally considered bad to sit on patents and not act on them. If every software designers and developers spend all their time patenting every random ideas they have, the industry would've gone nowhere. These don't imply the patent is not obvious.

It was normal for everyone to have a "spell check button", normal to have a separate window with a list of suggested words, normal to have a "change to" box that got populated when you clicked on a suggestion, and normal to have a "correct" button to implement said change.

The patent, and the implementation in Word 95, would have spell check occurring as you type, misspelling detected highlighted before you entered the next word, and a dropdown of reasonable suggestions if you clicked on it.

This is normal today, not in 1996.

Whether this should be patentable is a separate argument I cannot justify or defend, but the point is that, in 1996, it was very clever.

As a professional developer, I disagree. It boils down to "what if we check the spelling as they type?" - everything else is straightforward, or all comes down to the UI polish you give it. Some of our game systems are unique and new, ideas that nobody else has come up with. But the implementation is vastly more costly and iterative than the basic idea. And the implementation is already protected. The patent quite literally monopolises the idea, and that is wrong - no matter how insightful the idea.

Feel free to disagree. Patents are intended to monopolize the idea.

There are tons of ways to implement dynamic spellcheck.

You could have a second window that constantly displays a list of suggestions instead of a context menu; hitting shift-down could select the appropriate one (this implementation is similar to how some smartphone autocorrect works). In that vein, having an action drawer (call, respond, load link, save, etc) gets around this patent.

You could have the context menu appear automatically instead of selecting it (this is also how some smartphones work). The same is true for Android; instead of having a link to shout out it is actionable, you have a flyover hovering over the screen with actions when the document is loaded (a variant of the above)

The point is that patents are intended to protect even the simplest and stupidest ideas, but on the flip, the simpler the idea, the easier it is to work around, too.

Having an action drawer sounds nice. Load an email with a phone number and link and such, drag a window from the right side of the screen and get a list:Call XAdd person X to contactsAdd X to contact YLoad linkSave link for laterForward emailReply to email

Patents are absolutely not intended to allow you to monopolise an idea. They are specifically intended to allow you to protect an invention. The two things are quite different.

There is also an obvious and qualitative difference between real inventions and the kinds of patents being discussed here - e.g. Vulcanising rubber verses this. State the idea to anyone "skilled in the art" and they will ALL come up with the same, simplest, solution. Thus it is obvious.

I'm not sure from your posts where you stand on the issue, but saying that there are other, worse, solutions to avoid infringing bad patents doesn't really help the issue IMO. In fact it somewhat reinforces the point that there is literally nothing to these patents but UI.

I'm not being childish. You don't have a patent despite being obvious to you. It wasn't obvious to Palm, to RIM, to Nokia, to HTC, or anyone else except possibly Neonode, and because you don't have that patent, Apple has the ability to litigate everyone to death.

Given the same problem space (e.g. a touch screen and no buttons) every one of those companies would have come up with a solution that would be judged to 'infringe' the slide-to-unlock patent. It's just obvious to anyone who has ever done this stuff. It wasn't until Apple et al began throwing every UI widget they created at the patent office in the hope of preventing anyone else progressing that the whole system became (in the words of the above judge) chaos.

@pappy: I was imprecise. Patents are intended to allow you to monopolize a solution/implementation.

Slide to unlock is pretty precise. The patent describes the button and track, the pulsing to indicate direction as well as movement, the text to describe the action, the animation to indicate feedback, etc.

You can implement any number of variants to avoid the patent; perhaps a fingerprint to indicate where you place your finger; an arc instead of a straight line, and arrows to destinations (unlock icon, phone icon) or other actions (hold for 1 second, wiggle, etc)

Slide to unlock is not the only NOR optimal way to activate your phone.

I've already given you several. I just described several more.

In fact, I think the most optimal way is either voice, camera, motion, gesture, or all of the above.

@pappy: I was imprecise. Patents are intended to allow you to monopolize a solution/implementation.

Slide to unlock is pretty precise. The patent describes the button and track, the pulsing to indicate direction as well as movement, the text to describe the action, the animation to indicate feedback, etc.

You can implement any number of variants to avoid the patent; perhaps a fingerprint to indicate where you place your finger; an arc instead of a straight line, and arrows to destinations (unlock icon, phone icon) or other actions (hold for 1 second, wiggle, etc)

Slide to unlock is not the only NOR optimal way to activate your phone.

I've already given you several. I just described several more.

In fact, I think the most optimal way is either voice, camera, motion, gesture, or all of the above.

Pretty much all of your examples on stl are just UI, they are pictures or animation. How is that patentable? Or more accurately, how does that intend to honour the intention of patents to encourage innovation? Hell, if it's just one way of doing the same thing then surely by definitiion it isn't patentable as it is neither unique, non-trivial, nor innovative! It's all just look and feel...

edit: and wrt to optimal. Optimal isn't always the goal. Making something so you don't have to explain it is more important than being the absolute most efficient solution, when dealing with users (generally the fools in foolproof... )

In software UI design, there are usually only 1 or 2 ways which are most efficient in doing a task, and are usually immediately obvious [obvious in the sense that it only takes a competent designer less than an afternoon to figure it out]. eg. swipe to unlock the phone is the immediately obvious and efficient way once you decide on a touchscreen interface. eg Opening a dynamic menu right under the word for spell correction / action choice. Allowing to patent such ideas usually only means rewarding the first to file an idea rather than rewarding innovation, and the monopoly would hamper integration and further development.

For another example, the Microsoft Surface tablet got quite some raving for its form design. But really, the form factor design is very obvious. When ipad was first released, it took me a moment to figure out that such a form would be the natural extension of tablet because, really, it is the only natural way. It would be silly if Microsoft can simply patent this form and call it an innovation (instead of some underlying technologies that really require long research).

I cut out all the previous because I wanted to specifically address the last portion.....

1) If there are concurrent submissions for similar ideas, how would that be handled?

2) re: Microsoft Surface.... Agree. I would expect it to fail for a patent application based off of the obvious design.

What these companies do though is patent specific portions of that device, not the whole thing (because that's "obvious"). So, instead of patenting the whole device, I patent how it connects the cover to the screen.... I patent the keyboard being integrated into the cover..... and I just "shotgun" the various little design aspects and claim that they are unique.

The consequences of this?

A) By the rules, the USPTO is responsible for having to substantiate WHY a patent is denied, and cannot just simply deny it out of hand. It's similar to how legally, you're "innocent until proven guilty". the problem with this is the sheer volume of patent filings, it can be easy to overwhelm and slip something through. (USPTO is now given 12 months to accept/reject iirc).

B) Once a patent is approved, it cannot be summarily rejected by the USPTO. There's no, "OOPS! Wtf were we thinking? Uh no... give that back!" It has to go to court and effectively be subjected to its own sort of due process. This procedure is difficult (intentionally) and frequently just not pursued. Companies will often just pay a license fee and be done with it.

C) This method allows me to create a "patent minefield" for anyone making something similar to what I made. You make a competing product.... but a part on it resembles something that I slapped a patent for. All I have to do is make the field treacherous enough that, when a competitor releases, I look for anything that is similar to any one of my "mines". If I can show that it's "close".... boom.

Never mind that the actual device itself is not patented (and probably never could be). I'm hedging my bets that I can convince a judge that someone has infringed on my property. Even better if that judge is not savvy enough to understand the topic (engineering degree for the judge?.... doubtful).

I agree on the bit with the Microsoft Surface. It's not revolutionary. Neither was the iPad for that matter. It's a low-powered laptop with a touch-screen keyboard (it does still have a keyboard... it's just not a peripheral).

So detecting the hand grip and finger placement is pictures, UI, or animation? Detecting the motion of the phone in free space? Detecting the tilt and placement of the phone? Detecting a human face at a certain location and angle? Activating the microphone after a specific series of actions and recognizing the word "unlock"?

How about the fact that the phone should never be locked when you're using it unless you implement a lock?

What I'm trying to convey is that locked by default is inefficient and suboptimal unless you intentionally lock the phone or have it set to lock by default. The phone should be active and available as soon as feasible without any unlock action.

Orange - A lot of that could be pointed to as "software", and patent law around that starts to get fuzzy.

I'm not discounting your points. I'm simply pointing out a way that I, as a lawyer, might be compelled to attack a patent. "My client does this a different way, and that way is unique and not identical to yours."And with any luck, if I can get a jury that I think I can sell that idea too, or a judge that will buy it, I can hopefully negate your claim or your claims in regards to my client's product.

The only person who really wins here is me.... because whether you win or lose, I'm billing my client hours.

Orange - A lot of that could be pointed to as "software", and patent law around that starts to get fuzzy.

I'm not discounting your points. I'm simply pointing out a way that I, as a lawyer, might be compelled to attack a patent. "My client does this a different way, and that way is unique and not identical to yours."And with any luck, if I can get a jury that I think I can sell that idea too, or a judge that will buy it, I can hopefully negate your claim or your claims in regards to my client's product.

The only person who really wins here is me.... because whether you win or lose, I'm billing my client hours.

Thus why complexity ,lawyers and government should never be trusted and or is an enemy of humanity....

Laws and government are proxies by which wars, violence, and death are prevented.

Instead of Apple hiring mercenaries, soldiers, assassins, and thugs to take out Google, et al, they hire lawyers and use highly regular legal systems to attack the enemy.

Can you use the quote button?

I am not saying it has to be removed, even anarchy has complexity(how the few strong groups live with each other) and government(the leaders of the strongest mobs/gangs,ect of people).

What I am saying is things do not need to be so complicated, that government must be watched and corrected less it become stagnate,draconian and authoritarian. As for lawyers it goes back to government and complexity, lawyers thrive when the legal system is fat, unbalanced and regulation goes un enforced or is nonexsitant.

Why are you so trusting? Everything is out to make what it can where it can just because things are legal dose not make them right, intelligent or ethical.

What makes you think I'm trusting? Also, why do I need to use the quotes?

I make a living in software. It is to my advantage (to an extent) that the system exists the way it does. My company owns patents. I have co-workers who have patents.

The sword cuts both ways, of course, but that's the whole point of "live by the sword, die by the sword".

Things do need to be complicated, it's because life is complicated. IP is imaginary, patents, copyright, trade dress, trade secrets, corporations, fictious names, etc, are all created fictions and there are lots of laws surrounding them.

What makes you think I'm trusting? Also, why do I need to use the quotes?

I make a living in software. It is to my advantage (to an extent) that the system exists the way it does. My company owns patents. I have co-workers who have patents.

The sword cuts both ways, of course, but that's the whole point of "live by the sword, die by the sword".

Things do need to be complicated, it's because life is complicated. IP is imaginary, patents, copyright, trade dress, trade secrets, corporations, fictious names, etc, are all created fictions and there are lots of laws surrounding them.

Its nice and I like the way it looks, but whatever floats yer boat.

Well its good to know your biased, tho not much more biased then me LOL. I am always thinking to the middle ground away from monopolistic setups.

Life is only as complicated as you allow it to be. One can use 500 pages for what one word can express.

Question would be in favor for harder set in stone time limits for IP ?

So detecting the hand grip and finger placement is pictures, UI, or animation? Detecting the motion of the phone in free space? Detecting the tilt and placement of the phone? Detecting a human face at a certain location and angle? Activating the microphone after a specific series of actions and recognizing the word "unlock"?

How about the fact that the phone should never be locked when you're using it unless you implement a lock?

What I'm trying to convey is that locked by default is inefficient and suboptimal unless you intentionally lock the phone or have it set to lock by default. The phone should be active and available as soon as feasible without any unlock action.

Well, using quotes does let people know which post you are replying to .

I think you misunderstand. slide to lock is basically nothing but UI - was the point I was making. There is no invention there. It is patent from bull behind, yes?

Locked by default it the only way to keep users from doing stupid things by accident while playing pocket billiards. But that discussion is waaaay OT and has nothing to do with patents.

So detecting the hand grip and finger placement is pictures, UI, or animation? Detecting the motion of the phone in free space? Detecting the tilt and placement of the phone? Detecting a human face at a certain location and angle? Activating the microphone after a specific series of actions and recognizing the word "unlock"?

How about the fact that the phone should never be locked when you're using it unless you implement a lock?

What I'm trying to convey is that locked by default is inefficient and suboptimal unless you intentionally lock the phone or have it set to lock by default. The phone should be active and available as soon as feasible without any unlock action.

Well, using quotes does let people know which post you are replying to .

I think you misunderstand. slide to lock is basically nothing but UI - was the point I was making. There is no invention there. It is patent from bull behind, yes?

Locked by default it the only way to keep users from doing stupid things by accident while playing pocket billiards. But that discussion is waaaay OT and has nothing to do with patents.

I think what he is getting at is that slide to lock is a reasonable patent, so would be slide locking vertically, slide locking diagonally or side locking zig zag, but I still fail to the need to protect such simple ideas, its not worth our collective time/money to police or legitate.

Which is why you have to force them to license it or it gets no protection at all. Either you are making a profit off it and thus making more things to make more money or you are stagnating.

This may or may not be a good idea for software patents. Software doesn't have the kind of research costs, or failure rates, that pervade a lot of industrial research.

For example, requiring companies to license patents would probably kill off a lot of pharma research. New drugs have to go through a justifiably-long approval process. They have to be shown to be more effective than existing drugs, and their benefits have to outweigh their side-effects. Very few drugs survive this process, and each failure still costs quite a bit before it's discarded. To generate enough revenue to cover the costs of research (including all of the failed drugs), and to make a profit for the company, pharma uses their limited monopoly rights to sell drugs at a higher price.

What you're suggesting would probably break this model. Keep in mind that patents exist outside of the software world, and that your categorical fixes might look good for software, but might be a disaster for other industries.

Which is why you have to force them to license it or it gets no protection at all. Either you are making a profit off it and thus making more things to make more money or you are stagnating.

This may or may not be a good idea for software patents. Software doesn't have the kind of research costs, or failure rates, that pervade a lot of industrial research.

For example, requiring companies to license patents would probably kill off a lot of pharma research. New drugs have to go through a justifiably-long approval process. They have to be shown to be more effective than existing drugs, and their benefits have to outweigh their side-effects. Very few drugs survive this process, and each failure still costs quite a bit before it's discarded. To generate enough revenue to cover the costs of research (including all of the failed drugs), and to make a profit for the company, pharma uses their limited monopoly rights to sell drugs at a higher price.

What you're suggesting would probably break this model. Keep in mind that patents exist outside of the software world, and that your categorical fixes might look good for software, but might be a disaster for other industries.

Well we should not have software patents in the first place, but if we are going to forcing them to be un-monopolistic is a good thing as everyone whose willing to go through the licensing process can create a better product or sell whatever it is more efficiently. At the end of the day there is more innovation, progress and profits to be made by more organizations, I see no down side.

Meh big pharma would have to overhaul itself to stay competitive and thats not a bad thing since they are holding peoples lives at gun point over monopolistic practices. IMO the US government should make its own generic drugs for all the people on disability/ssi,ect and screw over IP rights the public needs it more than they do. We need cheaper drugs more than we need new drugs. And new drugs would still be made because the R&D teams would be funded by more groups rather than a few.That which can not be done by one can be done by many IE thy can group together and fund research, again I see the benefits exceeding the harm done.

The internet itself was created and then given away. Imagine how far it would have got if everyone had to have a license to use it! P.S. The bible was given away too (although it also was protected and used to control people for a long time). The printing press broke that hegemony and the internet has broken the hegemony of ideas as well as democratized publishing. Anyone arguing for patents ignores the fact that the best and most worthwhile things were developed and are used in spite of the stupid patents system, not because of it.

The internet itself was created and then given away. Imagine how far it would have got if everyone had to have a license to use it! P.S. The bible was given away too (although it also was protected and used to control people for a long time). The printing press broke that hegemony and the internet has broken the hegemony of ideas as well as democratized publishing. Anyone arguing for patents ignores the fact that the best and most worthwhile things were developed and are used in spite of the stupid patents system, not because of it.

You can't be serious? First off, a few ideas that were patented and are more important than the internet.

ElectricityInternal combustion enginetelephone

And the list goes on.

Also, the internet has never been free. Initially, when it was just connecting colleges you had to know someone to get access at all, through your dial-up modem. And hopefully a local access number. When it expanded beyond the campus, and was first commercialized you bought access through a service like GEnie, Compuserve or AOL. You paid a subscription fee *and* a per hour cost when connected. Someone will likely correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall it was around $6.00 an hour to be online.

The internet itself was created and then given away. Imagine how far it would have got if everyone had to have a license to use it! P.S. The bible was given away too (although it also was protected and used to control people for a long time). The printing press broke that hegemony and the internet has broken the hegemony of ideas as well as democratized publishing. Anyone arguing for patents ignores the fact that the best and most worthwhile things were developed and are used in spite of the stupid patents system, not because of it.

You can't be serious? First off, a few ideas that were patented and are more important than the internet.

ElectricityInternal combustion enginetelephone

And the list goes on.

Also, the internet has never been free. Initially, when it was just connecting colleges you had to know someone to get access at all, through your dial-up modem. And hopefully a local access number. When it expanded beyond the campus, and was first commercialized you bought access through a service like GEnie, Compuserve or AOL. You paid a subscription fee *and* a per hour cost when connected. Someone will likely correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall it was around $6.00 an hour to be online.

How went to the creators and how much went to keep infrastructure going?

I think its more the internet as a IP was given away for free in a sense, you just needed to find a semi exclusive middle man to get you to it. These days the internet is THE repository for human information. It dose not need to be turn into a quagmire of IP law or inane IP police that quietly keep the reins of fascism in place..